In conclusion, liposomal bupivacaine is effective for treating postoperative pain when used via local infiltration when compared to placebo with a prolonged duration of action, predictab
Trang 1Liposomal bupivacaine: a review of a new
bupivacaine formulation
Praveen Chahar
Kenneth C Cummings III
Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland
Clinic Foundation, Cleveland,
Ohio, USA
Correspondence: Kenneth Cummings III
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid
Avenue, Mail code G30, Cleveland,
OH 44195, USA
Tel +1 216 444 1016
Fax +1 216 444 4383
Email cummink2@ccf.org
Abstract: Many attempts have been made to increase the duration of local anesthetic action One
avenue of investigation has focused on encapsulating local anesthetics within carrier molecules
to increase their residence time at the site of action This article aims to review the literature surrounding the recently approved formulation of bupivacaine, which consists of bupivacaine loaded in multivesicular liposomes This preparation increases the duration of local anesthetic action by slow release from the liposome and delays the peak plasma concentration when compared to plain bupivacaine administration Liposomal bupivacaine has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for local infiltration for pain relief after bunionectomy and hemorrhoidectomy Studies have shown it to be an effective tool for postoperative pain relief with opioid sparing effects and it has also been found to have an acceptable adverse effect profile Its kinetics are favorable even in patients with moderate hepatic impairment, and it has been found not to delay wound healing after orthopedic surgery More studies are needed to establish its safety and efficacy for use via intrathecal, epidural, or perineural routes
In conclusion, liposomal bupivacaine is effective for treating postoperative pain when used via local infiltration when compared to placebo with a prolonged duration of action, predictable kinetics, and an acceptable side effect profile However, more adequately powered trials are needed to establish its superiority over plain bupivacaine.
Keywords: liposomal bupivacaine, postoperative pain, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics,
efficacy, safety
Introduction
Pain is a protective mechanism which has adaptive value, and the inability to experi-ence pain has been linked to early mortality from accidental injuries or damage to joints.1,2 However, pain in the postoperative setting is an unwanted side effect of surgery directed to improve morbidity or mortality The potential benefits of optimal postoperative pain control include: improved cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal functions; fewer thromboembolic complications; improved arterial graft survival; fewer septic complications; reduced chronic post surgical pain; reduced mortality in
of relief for perioperative pain; however, opioids have numerous side effects includ-ing nausea, vomitinclud-ing, respiratory depression, prolonged ileus, itchinclud-ing, tolerance, and
Increasingly, multimodal analgesia is used to reduce perioperative opiate require-ments, thus potentially reducing opioid side effects and improving the quality of analgesia.6,7 Local anesthetics are increasingly used perioperatively via different routes
R E v I E w
open access to scientific and medical research Open Access Full Text Article
Number of times this article has been viewed
This article was published in the following Dove Press journal:
Journal of Pain Research
13 August 2012
Trang 2as part of a multimodal regimen.8 The use of bolus injection
of local anesthetics is limited by duration of post operative
pain relief with the average duration of block via interscalene
injection being 8 to 12 hours with either bupivacaine 0.5% or
catheters are used to increase the duration of postoperative
perineu-ral catheters involves additional training11 in addition to the
Complications due to perineural catheters are infrequent
but can be life threatening, and these complications can
include infection, septicemia, intravascular placement, or
long acting local anesthetics, like liposomal bupivacaine is
potentially important in the management of perioperative pain
This article will review liposomal bupivacaine as a potential
addition to the clinician’s analgesic armamentarium
Liposomal bupivacaine
Liposomes are microscopic structures consisting of a
phospho-lipid bilayer encapsulating an aqueous core They may be
unila-mellar, multilaunila-mellar, or multivesicular Unilamellar liposomes
Figure 1 Scanning electron microscope image of DepoFoam® containing bupivacaine.
Image supplied courtesy of Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 5 Sylvan way, Parsippany, NJ 07054.
consist of a single lipid bilayer surrounding the aqueous core, whereas multilamellar liposomes consist of concentric lipid layers Multivesicular liposomes (MVL), however, consist of nonconcentric lipid bilayers The nonconcentric nature of MVL confers characteristic drug release patterns from the aqueous core that are different from the unilamellar and multilamellar liposomes, leading to increased stability and longer duration of drug release The release of drug from the MVL requires only a breach in the external layer, and release of a drug from internal vesicles leads to redistribution of the drug within the particle without release The multivesicular structure also ensures that the vesicles rearrange themselves without release of drug by internal fusion and division.14,15 These vesicles can encapsu-late water soluble drugs in their core, and lipid soluble drugs within the membrane They are used in the systemic delivery of antifungals, antineoplastics, and antibiotics.16,17 Currently avail-able liposomal bupivacaine consists of vesicles of bupivacaine
(Pacira Pharmaceuticals Inc, San Diego, CA) Each particle is composed of a honeycomb like structure of numerous internal aqueous chambers containing encapsulated bupivacaine18,19 (Figures 1 and 2)
Trang 3Bupivacaine is an amide local anesthetic, which acts by
inac-tivating voltage-dependent sodium channels It has a pKa of
8.1 so only 15% is present in uncharged form at tissue pH
The uncharged fraction of bupivacaine travels across the cell
membrane of the nerve, and once charged binds to the inner
side of sodium channels, inactivating them.20 The release of
bupivacaine from its binding site is slow, which leads to a
longer duration of action than lidocaine.21
Pharmacokinetics
The pharmacokinetics of MVL bupivacaine have been
compared MVL bupivacaine in doses of 9, 18, and 30 mg/kg
with 9 mg/kg of plain bupivacaine injected by wound
for the three doses of MVL bupivacaine, respectively
concentra-tion in the group receiving plain bupivacaine peaked
for the three doses of MVL bupivacaine, respectively Plasma bupivacaine concentrations were detectable in most animals (dogs) who received MVL bupivacaine 9 mg/kg over a 96-hour study period
In the pharmacokinetic study of human volunteers,
of 2% liposomal bupivacaine versus 20 mL of 0.5% plain
liposomal groups, respectively) despite a 4-fold increase
in bupivacaine dose and a 9.8-fold increase in the terminal half-life displayed by the liposomal bupivacaine group
the liposomal bupivacaine group compared to the group administered plain bupivacaine, which was attributable to the slow release of liposomal bupivacaine The attributes of slow release leading to prolonged Tmax and long T ½ leading
to prolonged detectable plasma concentration of liposomal bupivacaine have been confirmed in a subsequent Phase II, multicenter clinical trial conducted by Langford et al.23 Bupivacaine is metabolized mainly in the liver by glucuronide conjugation and hepatic N-dealkylation into pipecolylxylidine Pipecolylxylidine is then hydroxylated and forms glucuronide conjugates A small amount of bupivacaine is excreted unchanged in urine.24 In a phar-macokinetic study of liposomal bupivacaine in patients
although bupivacaine and pipecolylxylidine concentrations were higher in patients with moderate hepatic impairment than in patients with normal hepatic function, the concentra-tion time plots were similar in both groups, and the differ-ences were small enough not to warrant dose adjustments
as per Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines
Efficacy in postoperative pain
Liposomal bupivacaine has been FDA approved for single dose wound infiltration in postoperative pain relief among patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy and bunionectomy.26 Gorfine et al27 conducted a multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy At the end of surgery, patients were randomized to receive either 300 mg (30 mL) extended release MVL bupivacaine or placebo (30 mL
of 0.9% sodium chloride) in 5 mL increments via wound infiltration Intraoperative use of all analgesics or local anesthetics, except fentanyl, was prohibited unless needed for the treatment of adverse effects Patients remained at the
DepoFoam (non-concentric)
®
10–30 μm
Figure 2 Cross-sectional diagram of DepoFoam containing bupivacaine.
Image supplied courtesy of Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 5 Sylvan way, Parsippany,
NJ 07054.
Trang 4study center for 72 hours, and were administered postsurgical
analgesia in response to breakthrough pain consisting of
morphine sulfate as needed
The primary outcome measure consisted of a cumulative
pain score in the first 72 hours as reflected in the AUC0–72 (area
under the curve) numerical rating score (NRS) of pain
inten-sity Secondary efficacy measures consisted of assessing the
proportion of patients who received no opioid rescue
medica-tions, total amount of opioid rescue medications consumed,
time to first postsurgical use of rescue medications, and the
patient’s rating of satisfaction with postsurgical analgesia
The researchers found the pain scores to be markedly lower
in the bupivacaine extended release group compared to
those receiving the placebo with a least mean square (SE)
AUC ranging from 0 to 72 hours of 141.8 (10.7) in the MVL
bupivacaine group versus 202.5 (10.7) in the placebo group
(P , 0.0001) In the bupivacaine extended release group,
59% of patients were opioid free at 12 hours, and 28% were
opioid free at 72 hours when compared to 14% and 10% in the
placebo group, respectively (P , 0.0008 through 72 hours)
In addition, the mean total amount of opioid consumed was
lower in the MVL bupivacaine group (22.3 mg vs 29.1 mg,
P # 0.0006), and the median time to first opioid use was
longer (14.3 hours vs 1.2 hours with P , 0.0001) and was
associated with greater patient satisfaction with
to placebo
Golf et al28 conducted a multicenter, parallel group,
pla-cebo controlled, randomized, double blind study in which they
compared extended release MVL bupivacaine to placebo in
patients undergoing bunionectomy The patients underwent
primary first metatarsal bunionectomy under midazolam and/
or propofol sedation with Mayo block with up to 25 mL of
2% lidocaine with epinephrine Within 30 minutes after
injec-tion of lidocaine, the patients received either a single dose
of 120 mg (8 mL) extended release bupivacaine or placebo
(8 mL 0.9% sodium chloride) by local infiltration Patients
were observed for 24 hours at the study center Rescue
anal-gesia consisted of 5 mg oxycodone/325 mg acetaminophen
tablets up to a maximum of 12 tablets per day with a single
dose of intravenous ketorolac 15–30 mg as a second rescue
The primary outcome measure was the AUC of NRS pain
scores through 24 hours Secondary outcome measures
consisted of: the proportion of patients who received no
rescue pain medications; AUC of NRS pain scores through
36, 48, 60, and 72 hours; the proportion of patients who
were pain free during the observation period; the time to first
rescue medication use; and total oxycodone/acetaminophen
consumption through 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 hours The researchers found markedly reduced pain intensity scores at
24 and 36 hours post injection in the MVL bupivacaine group
percentage of patients who were pain free showed a statisti-cally significant difference at 2, 4, 8, and 48 hours only in
the MVL bupivacaine group (P , 0.05), with more patients
in the MVL bupivacaine group not receiving any rescue
pain medication through 24 hours only (P , 0.05) The
time to first opioid use was longer (7.2 hours vs 4.3 hours,
P , 0.0001), and fewer mean total number of oxycodone/
acetaminophen tablets were used through 24 hours (3.8 vs 4.7
to the placebo group
Smoot et al29 conducted a randomized, multicenter, double blind, parallel group, active control study comparing MVL bupivacaine 300 mg to bupivacaine HCl 100 mg (bupi-vacaine 0.5% with epinephrine 1:200,000) in patients under-going bilateral cosmetic submuscular breast augmentation
At the end of the surgical procedure, the patients received either 300 mg of MVL bupivacaine or 100 mg of bupivacaine HCl (with epinephrine) on each side, injected locally at the breast implant pockets at the end of surgery Postoperatively, the patients received 1000 mg of acetaminophen three times daily with rescue analgesia (oxycodone) for breakthrough pain through 96 hours The primary outcome measure was the AUC of NRS pain scores through 72 hours Secondary outcomes consisted of cumulative pain scores at time points other than 72 hours, proportion of patients not requiring rescue analgesia, total amount of rescue opioid medication consumed, and integrated rank assessment through multiple time points
The mean cumulative pain score (numeric rating score with activity through 72 hours) was not significantly dif-ferent in the two groups (441.5 in the MVL bupivacaine
The lack of a difference was attributed to a lack of statisti-cal power The NRS pain score with activity mean (SE) was markedly lower in the MVL bupivacaine group at 8 and 12 hours [4.9 (0.41) and 5.6 (0.40)] compared with the
and 0.0143, respectively] The difference in mean (SE) pain scores at rest was also lower in the MVL bupivacaine group
at 8 hours only compared to the bupivacaine HCl group
[3.5 (0.35) vs 5.0 (0.34) respectively (P = 0.027)] The total amount of postsurgical rescue opioid medication used at
24 and 48 hours was also lower in the MVL bupivacaine
Trang 5group compared to the bupivacaine HCl group (P = 0.0211
and 0.0459, respectively)
study comparing wound infiltration of MVL bupivacaine
to bupivacaine HCl for postsurgical analgesia in total
knee arthroplasty They compared 150 mg of bupivacaine
HCl (with 1:200,000 epinephrine) to MVL bupivacaine
in doses of 133 mg, 266 mg, 399 mg, and 532 mg The
patients were between 18–75 years old and were
classi-fied as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical
status 1–3 patients undergoing unilateral knee replacement
under general anesthesia For 24 hours prior to surgery, all
patients received 1000 mg of acetaminophen three times
daily Intraoperatively, only intravenous fentanyl use was
permitted The study medications were diluted in 60 mL of
0.9% saline and were injected via local infiltration in the
deep tissues, the capsulotomy incision, and the subcutaneous
tissues intraoperatively Postoperatively, patients received a
single dose of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug
paren-tally with oral acetaminophen For rescue analgesia,
patient-controlled intravenous morphine was used until patients could
be switched to oral oxycodone 5–10 mg every 4–6 hours once
oral intake was established The primary outcome measure
was AUC of NRS pain scores with activity (NRS-A) through
day 4 Secondary outcome measures consisted of: AUC of NRS-A through time points other than day 4; AUC of NRS pain scores at rest (NRS-R); NRS-R and NRS-A scores at each assessed time point; total consumption of opioid rescue medications; total consumption of opioid medications; time
to resumption of daily activities; and provider’s satisfaction with postoperative analgesia on day 8
There was no difference between the groups for the primary outcome measure of the mean AUC of NRS pain scores with activity The mean (SD) scores were 20.4 (3.9)
in the bupivacaine HCl group versus 19.1 (4.4), 18.8 (5.3), 19.5 (5.3), and 20.7 (5.4), in the MVL bupivacaine 532 mg,
399 mg, 266 mg, and 133 mg groups, respectively There was no detectable difference in the groups with regard to mean numeric rating scale pain scores, total consumption of rescue opioids, or the time to resumption of work or normal daily activities (Table 1)
1:200,000 epinephrine) with 0.5% liposomal bupivacaine (a multilamellar formulation different from the clinically available multivesicular DepoFoam) administered epidur-ally for the management of postsurgical pain The patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 2 and 3 undergoing major abdominal surgery
Table 1 Studies comparing the efficacy of MVL bupivacaine versus placebo or bupivacaine HCl
Author Type
of study
Comparison Surgery Primary outcome Results
Gorfine
et al 27
RCT 300 mg DepoFoam
bupivacaine compared with placebo
Hemorrhoidectomy AUC0–72 of NRS
pain intensity scores
Least square mean (SE) AUC0–72 141.8 (10.7)
in the DepoFoam bupivacaine (n = 94) group compared to 202.5 (10.7) in placebo (n = 93) P , 0.0001.
Golf
et al 28
RCT 120 mg DepoFoam
bupivacaine compared with placebo
Bunionectomy AUC0–24 of NRS
pain intensity scores
Least square mean (SE) AUC0–24 123.936 (4.4854) in DepoFoam bupivacaine group (n = 93) compared to 146.233 (4.5869) in placebo (n = 92) P , 0.0005 95% CI
of difference between DepoFoam bupivacaine vs placebo -34.799 to -9.794 Smoot
et al 29
RCT 600 mg DepoFoam
bupivacaine compared with 200 mg bupivacaine HCl with epinephrine 1:200,000
Submuscular augmentation mammoplasty
AUC0–72 of NRS-A pain intensity scores
Mean (SE) AUC0–72 441.5 (23.6) in DepoFoam bupivacaine group (n = 66) and 468.2 (23.0) in bupivacaine HCl group (n = 70) P = 0.3999.
Bramlett
et al 30
RCT Bupivacaine HCl 150 mg
(0.5%) with epinephrine 1:200,000 compared with four doses of DepoFoam bupivacaine (133, 266,
399, and 532 mg)
Total knee arthroplasty
AUC0–96 of NRS-A pain intensity scores
Mean (SD) 20.7 (5.4), 19.5 (5.3), 18.8 (5.3), and 19.1 (4.4) in DepoFoam bupivacaine
133 mg, 266 mg, 399 mg, and 532 mg groups (n = 25, 24, 26, and 21, respectively) and 20.4 (3.9) in the bupivacaine HCl group (n = 30) P value 0.05 in each DepoFoam bupivacaine group compared to bupivacaine HCl group.
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; MVL, multivesicular liposomes; NRS, numerical rating score; NOS, not otherwise specified; NRS-A, numerical rating score with
activity; RCT, randomized clinical trial; SD, standard deviation; SE, standared error.
Trang 6The epidural catheter was inserted with a test dose of
bupiva-caine (0.5% 3 mL) with epinephrine 1:200,000 given at the
time of insertion Postoperatively, when patients experienced
pain after complete recovery of motor function, they received
a 10 mL bolus of either liposomal bupivacaine 0.5% or 10 mL
of plain bupivacaine 0.5% (with 1:200,000 epinephrine) The
researchers found no detectable difference in the time of onset
of analgesia (13.75 ±1.25 min in the plain bupivacaine group
versus 13.92 ± 1.58 min in the liposomal bupivacaine group),
though the duration of analgesia increased significantly in
plain bupivacaine group, P , 0.05) In a subset of patients
who underwent abdominal aortic surgery, the duration of
group versus 2.42 ± 0.35 hours in the plain bupivacaine group
(P , 0.001) There was no motor block in the liposomal
bupivacaine group though intraoperative surgical anesthesia
was not observed with the liposomal bupivacaine group The
lack of surgical block was thought to be due to alterations in
the pharmacodynamics of the drug preventing the necessary
amount of free bupivacaine available at the site of action,
thus producing only postsurgical analgesia There are no
studies evaluating the epidural use of DepoFoam bupivacaine
to assess whether the lack of surgical analgesia is seen with
the DepoFoam formulation as well
Safety
Bupivacaine may produce many adverse effects The most
common life threatening side effects involve the
cardiovas-cular and central nervous systems.32,33 Bupivacaine is more
cardiotoxic than lidocaine, and it produces its toxicity by
shown that bupivacaine uncouples oxidative
phosphoryla-tion, may induce apoptosis in muscle cells, and may cause
Schwann cell damage The damage to Schwann cells
hap-pens in both a time as well as a concentration dependent
and may be related to Ca2+-induced apoptosis of muscle cells
The myotoxicity of bupivacaine is most pronounced after
retrobulbar and peribulbar blocks with an overall incidence
of anesthesia-related diplopia reported to be 0.25%.36,37
Although the diplopia may resolve spontaneously, it may
require surgical correction.38
The most common side effects of MVL bupivacaine
in clinical trials included nausea, vomiting,
constipa-tion, pyrexia, dizziness, and headache.28,30 Bergese et al39
compared the cardiac safety of MVL bupivacaine in four
doses (150, 300, 450, or 600 mg) to bupivacaine HCl with epinephrine injected via wound infiltration intraoperatively
in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty They found
no significant differences in change from baseline in QRS
or QTc duration in the two groups, nor did the two groups differ in mean change from baseline heart rate and PR
of MVL bupivacaine (300, 450, 600, and 750 mg) injected subcutaneously on the QTc interval in healthy volunteers None of the participants receiving MVL bupivacaine had a maximum QTc interval greater than 500 ms, and there were
no changes in QTc of greater than 60 ms at any measured time point
In a 2-year follow up study assessing the effect of MVL bupivacaine on the integrity of breast implants after
impact of intraoperative use of MVL bupivacaine on the integrity of breast implants Local anesthetics have inhibi-tory effects on platelet aggregation in response to different agonists Pinto et al42 studied the effect of multilamellar liposomal local anesthetics on the inhibition of platelet aggre-gation in response to adenosine diphosphate They found that encapsulation of local anesthetics into liposomes increased the inhibitory effect of local anesthetics; however, the clinical impact (if any) of this finding remains to be seen in larger trials In an animal studies by Richard et al18,19 evaluating the safety and efficacy of MVL bupivacaine compared to plain bupivacaine and saline, the authors did find granulomatous inflammation in the MVL bupivacaine group, which was considered to be a normal reaction to liposomes; however, there was no effect on wound healing MVL bupivacaine did not alter wound healing or wound scarring when used for postsurgical analgesia after total knee arthroplasty in humans.30
local anesthetic as it may increase the release of bupivacaine from the liposomes It should not be allowed to come in contact with antiseptics like chlorhexidine or povidine iodine
as they may disrupt the lipid layers leading to uncontrolled release of bupivacaine.43
Discussion
DepoFoam-encapsulated bupivacaine is a new formula-tion of bupivacaine that provides slow sustained release of bupivacaine from multivesicular liposomes Compared to placebo, it has been shown to produce prolonged analgesia with an opioid sparing effect, although more adequately powered trials are needed to assess its efficacy and duration of
Trang 7analgesia compared to standard local anesthetic solutions At
present, it is approved by the FDA for use via local infiltration
after bunionectomy and hemorrhoidectomy It has not been
shown to be more toxic compared to plain bupivacaine, and
it does not have markedly different cardiac effects than plain
bupivacaine It appears safe for use in patients with moderate
hepatic impairment and does not warrant dose adjustment in
that group.25 It has not been evaluated for use via
intrathe-cal, epidural, or perineural administration or in pediatric
to evaluate its efficacy and safety in these populations If its
safety and efficacy are established for epidural, intrathecal,
and perineural use, it holds a potentially valuable place in
the analgesic arsenal for use against postoperative pain and
may substantially reduce the cost and complications
associ-ated with catheter and local anesthetic infusion pumps In
addition, the opioid sparing effects of MVL bupivacaine are
valuable in potentially reducing opioid-related side effects
This in turn may reduce unwanted hospital admissions related
to postoperative pain or opioid side effects
In summary, the current literature studying MVL
bupiva-caine has, in general, demonstrated prolonged analgesia and
reduced opioid side effects compared to placebo However, its
increased analgesic efficacy (and cost effectiveness) compared
to plain bupivacaine in various clinical settings needs to be
evaluated in adequately powered clinical trials At present, the
literature supports only a limited role for MVL bupivacaine
This may change as larger studies are conducted
Acknowledgements
Figure 1 and a copy of References 23, 25, 39, and 40 were
provided by Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 5 Sylvan Way,
Parsippany, NJ 07054 The company had no input in the
preparation or editing of this manuscript
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work
References
1 Acerbi A, Parisi D The evolution of pain In: Costa FA, Rocha LM,
Costa E, Harvey I, Coutinho A, editors Advances in Artificial Life ECAL
2007: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Advances in Artificial
Life; September 10–14, 2007; Lisbon, Portugal Berlin: Springer; 2007:
816–824.
2 Loeser JD, Melzack R Pain: an overview Lancet 1999;353(9164):
1607–1069.
3 Breivik H Pain management Baillieres Clin Anaesthesiol 1994;8(4):
775–795.
4 Koppert W, Schmelz M The impact of opioid-induced
hyperal-gesia for postoperative pain Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol
2007;21(1):65–83.
5 Chau DL, Walker V, Pai L, Cho LM Opiates and elderly: use and side
effects Clin Interv Aging 2008;3(2):273–278.
6 Buvanendran A, Kroin JS Multimodal analgesia for controlling acute
postoperative pain Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2009;22(5):588–593.
7 Dahl V, Raeder JC Non-opioid postoperative analgesia Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000;44(10):1191–1203.
8 Tuncer S, Aysolmaz G, Reisli R, Erol A, Yalçin N, Yosunkaya A The effects of the administration of subfacial levobupivacaine infusion with the ON-Q pain pump system on postoperative analgesia and tramadol
consumption in cesarean operations Agri 2010;22(2):73–78.
9 Borgeat A, Ekatodramis G Anaesthesia for shoulder surgery Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2002;16(2):211–225.
10 Osada R, Zukawa M, Seki E, Kimura T Continuous peripheral
nerve block in forearm for severe hand trauma Hand Surg
2011;16(3):239–244.
11 Chelly JE, Delaunay L, Williams B, Borghi B Outpatient lower
extremity infusions Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2002;16(2):
311–320.
12 Richman JM, Liu SS, Courpas G, et al Does continuous peripheral nerve block provide superior pain control to opioids? A meta-analysis
Anesth Analg 2006;102(1):248–257.
13 Chelly JE, Ghisi D, Fanelli A Continuous peripheral nerve blocks in
acute pain management Br J Anaesth 2010;105 Suppl 1:i86–i96.
14 Mantripragada S A lipid based depot (DepoFoam technology)
for sustained release drug delivery Prog Lipid Res 2002;41(5):
392–406.
15 New RRC Influence of liposome characteristics on their properties and
fate In: Philippot JR, Schuber F, editors Liposomes as Tools in Basic Research and Industry Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995:3–20.
16 Mowat JJ, Mok MJ, MacLeod BA, Madden TD Liposomal bupivacaine Extended duration nerve blockade using large
unilamel-lar vesicles that exhibit a proton gradient Anesthesiology 1996;85(3):
635–643.
17 Ostro MJ, Cullis PR Use of liposomes as injectable-drug delivery
systems Am J Hosp Pharm 1989;46(8):1576–1587.
18 Richard BM, Ott LR, Haan D, et al The safety and tolerability evalua-tion of DepoFoam bupivacaine (bupivacaine extended-release liposome injection) administered by incision wound infiltration in rabbits and
dogs Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2011;20(10):1327–1341.
19 Richard BM, Newton P, Ott LR, et al The safety of EXPAREL ® (bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension) administered by
periph-eral nerve block in rabbits and dogs J Drug Deliv [Serial on the
Internet] Jan 2012 [cited July 2, 2012];962101:[10 p.] http://www hindawi.com/journals/jdd/2012/962101/ Accessed July 2, 2012.
20 Dullenkopf A, Borgeat A Local anesthetics Differences and similarities
in the “-cains” Anaesthesist 2003;52(4):329–340.
21 Covino BG Pharmacology of local anaesthetic agents Br J Anaesth
1986;58(7):701–716.
22 Davidson EM, Barenholz Y, Cohen R, Haroutiunian S, Kagan L, Ginosar Y High-dose bupivacaine remotely loaded into multivesicular liposomes demonstrates slow drug release without systemic toxic plasma concentrations after subcutaneous administration in humans
Anesth Analg 2010;110(4):1018–1023.
23 Langford RM, Chappell GM, Karrasch JA A single administration of DepoBupivacaine (TM) intraoperatively results in prolonged detectable plasma bupivacaine and analgesia in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair Poster presented at: 62nd Annual Postgraduate Assembly of the New York State Society of Anesthesiologists; December 12–16, 2008; New York, NY.
24 Gantenbein M, Attolini L, Bruguerolle B, et al Oxidative metabolism
of bupivacaine into pipecolylxylidine in humans is mainly catalyzed
by CYP3A Drug Metab Dispos 2000;28(4):383–385.
25 Onel E, Warnott K, Lambert W, Patou G Pharmacokinetics of depobupi-vacaine (EXPAREL TM ), a novel bupivacaine extended release liposomal injection, in volunteers with moderate hepatic impairment Poster pre-sented at: 112th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics; March 3–6, 2011; Dallas, TX.
Trang 8Journal of Pain Research
Publish your work in this journal
Submit your manuscript here: http://www.dovepress.com/journal-of-pain-research-journal
The Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open
access, online journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings
in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management
of pain Original research, reviews, symposium reports,
hypoth-esis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication
The manuscript management system is completely online and includes
a very quick and fair peer-review system, which is all easy to use Visit http://www.dovepress.com/testimonials.php to read real quotes from published authors.
26 US Food and Drug Administration FDA Label Approved on 10/28/2011
(PDF) for EXPAREL US Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug
Admin-istration Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_
docs/label/2011/022496s000lbl.pdf Accessed May 01, 2012.
27 Gorf ine SR, Onel E, Patou G, Krivokapic ZV Bupivacaine
extended-release liposome injection for prolonged postsurgical
analgesia in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy: a multicenter,
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Dis Colon Rectum
2011;54(12):1552–1559.
28 Golf M, Daniels SE, Onel E A phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled
trial of DepoFoam ® bupivacaine (extended-release bupivacaine local
analgesic) in bunionectomy Adv Ther 2011;28(9):776–788.
29 Smoot JD, Bergese SD, Onel E, Williams HT, Hedden W The efficacy
and safety of DepoFoam bupivacaine in patients undergoing bilateral,
cosmetic, submuscular augmentation mammoplasty: a randomized,
double-blind, active-control study Aesthet Surg J 2012;32(1):69–76.
30 Bramlett K, Onel E, Viscusi ER, Jones K A randomized,
double-blind, dose-ranging study comparing wound infiltration of DepoFoam
bupivacaine, an extended-release liposomal bupivacaine, to bupivacaine
HCl for postsurgical analgesia in total knee arthroplasty Knee In press:
January 27, 2012.
31 Boogaerts JG, Lafont ND, Declercq AG, et al Epidural administration
of liposome-associated bupivacaine for the management of postsurgical
pain: a first study J Clin Anesth 1994;6(4):315–320.
32 AstraZeneca Canada Bupivacaine Prescribing Information
Mississauga, ON: AstraZeneca Canada Inc Available from: http://
www.astrazeneca.ca/documents/ProductPortfolio/SENSORCAINE_
PM_en.pdf Accessed April 28, 2012.
33 Tucker GT, Mather LE Clinical pharmacokinetics of local anaesthetics
Clin Pharmacokinet 1979;4(4):241–278.
34 Wolfe JW, Butterworth JF Local anesthetic systemic toxicity:
update on mechanisms and treatment Curr Opin Anaesthesiol
2011;24(5):561–566.
35 Yang S, Abrahams MS, Hurn PD, Grafe MR, Kirsch JR Local anesthetic
Schwann cell toxicity is time and concentration dependent Reg Anesth Pain Med 2011;36(5):444–451.
36 Zink W, Graf BM Local anesthetic myotoxicity Reg Anesth Pain Med
2004;29(4):333–340.
37 Gómez-Arnau JI, Yangüela J, González A, et al Anaesthesia-related
diplopia after cataract surgery Br J Anaesth 2003;90(2):189–193.
38 Vlăduţiu C, Sevan S, Ciuică M Diplopia through toxic myopathy after
cataract surgery Oftalmologia 2008;52(4):77–82.
39 Bergese SD, Onel E, Morren M, Morganroth J Bupivacaine extended-release liposome injection exhibits a favorable cardiac safety profile
Reg Anesth Pain Med 2012;37(2):145–151.
40 Naseem A, Harada T, Wang D, et al Bupivacaine extended release lipo-some injection does not prolong QTc interval in a thorough QT/QTc study
in healthy volunteers J Clin Pharmacol Epub November 4, 2011.
41 Minkowitz HS, Onel E, Patronella CK, Smoot JD A two-year observational study assessing the safety of DepoFoam bupivacaine after
augmentation mammaplasty Aesthet Surg J 2012;32(2):186–193.
42 Pinto LM, Pereira R, de Paula E, de Nucci G, Santana MH, Donato JL Influence of liposomal local anesthetics on platelet aggregation in vitro
J Liposome Res 2004;14(1–2):51–59.
43 Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc Exparel (Bupivacaine Liposome Injectable Suspension) Product Monograph Parsippany, NJ: Pacira
Pharmaceuticals, Inc Available from: http://www.exparel.com/pdf/ Exparel_Monograph.pdf Accessed May 01, 2012.
Dove press